Obedience

• Proximity


  • When the learner was in the same room, levels of obedience dropped to 40%
  • When the teacher had to force the learner's hand onto a shock plate, levels dropped further to 30%
  • When the authority figure left the room, obedience levels dropped to just 21%
• Location


  • Because the studies were conducted at Yale University, participants reported that this gave them confidence in the integrity of the study, making them more likely to obey
  • When the study was moved to run-down offices with no affiliation to Yale, obedience levels dropped to 48%
• The power of uniform


  • Uniforms influence obedience because they are easily recognisable and convey power and authority
  • Bushman (1988) found people were more likely to obey a researcher in a police-style uniform than dressed as a business executive
• Milgram's study procedure


  1. The teacher tested the learner's ability to remember word pairs, administering (bogus) shocks for any errors. These increased in 15-v increments

  2. In the voice-feedback condition, the learner was in another room and stopped responding at 315 volts. The experimenter used prods to try and keep the teacher delivering the shocks
• Milgram's findings


  • All participants went to at least 300 volts

  • 65% delivered maximum shock at 450 volts
• Milgram's study suffered from a lack of realism


  • Perry (2012) discovered that many of Milgram's participants were skeptical about whether the shocks were real. Those who believed the shocks were real were less likely to obey the experimenter
• Milgram's study has been found to have historical validity


  • Blass (1999), in an analysis of obedience studies carried out between 1961 and 1985, found no relationship between the year of publication and levels of obedience
• Increasing proximity does not always lead to decreased obedience


  • A study of Reserve Police Battalion 101 found that close physical proximity to their Jewish victims did not make these men less obedient.

  • Mandel (1998) concludes obedience as an explanation masks the real reasons behind these behaviours
• Location - High levels of obedience were not surprising


  • Fromm (1973) claims that as Milgram's participants knew they were part of a scientific experiment, this made them more likely to obey

  • Milgram's findings should not be generalised
• Agentic state


  A person does not see themselves as responsible for their actions, but attributes responsibility to someone else, particularly an authority figure
• Legitimacy of authority


  The power of a legitimate authority figure stems from their perceived position in a social situation rather than any personal characteristics
• Shift from autonomous state to agentic state


  Happens to shift blame onto an authority figure so the person can maintain a positive self-image without feeling guilt over their actions
• What keeps a person in the agentic state


  Binding factors (e.g. appearing rude for refusing orders after having accepted authority figure's commands)
• For an authority to be perceived as legitimate, they must represent a respected institution


  This was the case in Milgram's study because the experiment took place in a scientific laboratory within a prestigious university
• In Milgram's experiment, participants had the expectation that someone would be in charge


  The experimenter then fulfilled this expectation by having an 'air of authority'
• People tend to accept definitions of a situation that are provided by a legitimate authority figure


  In Milgram's experiment, participants unquestioningly accepted the experimenter's reassurances about the learner
• The agentic state explanation does not explain real life obedience


  • Lifton (1986) argues Milgram's claim that people shift between the autonomous and agentic state doesn't explain German doctors at Auschwitz who gradually and irreversibly became capable of horrific experiments on prisoners
• Milgram's obedient participants might just have been cruel


  • Zimbardo's guards were willing to inflict cruelty without instructions, suggesting some may desire to inflict harm on others without the agentic state
• Legitimate authority explanation can account for some acts of destructive obedience


  If people are willing to let authority figures make judgements about what is acceptable conduct they no longer feel their own moral values are relevant to how they behave allowing them to commit hugely destructive and immoral acts with little guilt
• Obedience in the cockpit tests legitimacy of authority


  • In a study of aviation accidents Tarnow (2000) found that excessive dependence on the captain's authority was a contributory factor in a large proportion of the accidents investigated
• The Authoritarian Personality

  A specific personality type that provides a possible explanation as to why some individuals require very little pressure in order to obey
• Elms and Milgram's study procedure


  1. Each participant completed a personality scale (the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory or MMPI) and the authoritarianism scale (F scale)

  2. They were also asked questions about their upbringing and their attitude to the experimenter and the learner in Milgram's study
• Adorno et al. (1950) developed the F scale to measure components of the Authoritarian Personality


  He found that people who scored high on the F scale tended to have grown up in a particularly authoritarian family with a strong emphasis on obedience
• Elms and Milgram's findings


  • Higher levels of authoritarianism among obedient participants

  • Obedient participants reported being less close to their fathers in childhood and saw authority figure as more admirable than the learner
• There is research evidence for the authoritarianism and obedience link

  • Dambraun and Vatiné (2010) used an 'immersive visual environment', yet participants acted as if it was real, with significant correlation between RWA scores and maximum voltage shock level
• Social context is more important than personality


  • Milgram showed variations in the social context (location, proximity) were the primary cause of differences in obedience
• There are differences between authoritarian and obedient participants


  • Elms and Milgram found important differences in characteristics of the Authoritarian Personality and obedient participants (e.g. Good relationship with parents)
• Correlation rather than causation for authoritarianism and obedience



  •Research suggests that less educated people are consistently both more authoritarian and more obedient